America’s public engagement in this environment should — and will — focus less upon al-Qaeda and more on building broad support for American foreign policy goals, establishing long-term foundations of trust and mutual respect, supporting engagement with potential adversaries, and moving beyond the counter-productive binary oppositions and threat inflation which have blocked progress for so many years. 

-Marc Lynch, Beyond ‘Violent Extremism’, May 8, 2009

I agree with Lynch that American public diplomacy should change, but I lack faith that it will change.  Efforts to dilute threat inflation or breakdown binaries will most likely be short lived.  Humans are prone to do whatever it takes to ensure their own survival.  Recent history shows (Japanese Internment, Torture after 9/11) that when faced with their own mortality, people are often fickle with their morality and are prone to accept rash decisions in the pursuit of safety.  

Let’s start a thought experiment.  How does Obama respond to another mass casualty terror attack on U.S. soil.  Note the question is not how should, but how would the government respond.  In 2006, Philip H. Gordon, a senior fellow at Brookings, provides a potential answer in Foreign Affairs:

If a U.S. city were hit by a chemical or biological terrorist attack leading to mass casualties, more Americans might come around to the view that the United States is in fact “at war” and that the [Bush] administration’s aggressive efforts to “change the world” are “worth it.” Bombing Iran in order to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons would probably seem rash and counterproductive to most Americans today, but in the wake of a nuclear or even a “dirty bomb” attack that killed large numbers of Americans, the calculation about the risks of nuclear proliferation might look very different. A WMD attack might even provide retrospective justification for the Iraq war, reinforcing the notion that the United States cannot risk not acting in the face of a potential threat of proliferation.  

This scenario reads as highly plausible during the Obama administration, especially if you substitute Iran with Pakistan.  The challenge faced by those arguing for increased global engagement is how to build bonds of trust with adversarial nations that can both withstand a future terror attack and help diffuse potentially misguided acts of retaliation.   

There is no easy way to go about making this a reality, but the discussion must start from this premise.  Even if there are no future terror attacks against the United States, initially assuming that a rapid rise in public distrust of difference will occur again allows for a more comprehensive engagement strategy. 

To begin, I look to the under appreciated, at least in the United States, anthropologist René Girard.  Roberto Farneti, an assistant professor of Politics at the Free University of Bozen/Bolzano, wrote about Girad’s theories of violence in Theory & Event.  He writes: 

It is difficult  Girard’s “mimetic theory” entails that mimetic desire is bound to generate dynamics of scapegoating so long as the people involved remain unaware of the mimetic, namely, non-rational and non-reflective nature of their actions. One of the key-assumptions of Girard’s theory is that “violence operates without a reason” (46), and that the mimetic, that is, non subject-based, impulses driving the mimetic rivals against each other have no cognitive access to the actual sources of their behaviour. Violence, therefore, seems to succeed in dissimulating its actual motivational springs. Furthermore, it does not feed on “reasons,” which will start playing a major cognitive role only after the people involved in the mimetic conflict have already targeted each other as potential rivals.

The challenge facing public diplomats is to remind people of the reasons for why violence fails.  Scapegoating will be stymied when confronted with rational discussion.  Establishing trust between nations requires moderates in both nations to speak out and counter demagoguery.  Engagement requires debating those forces at home that want to hinder cross-cultural understanding. 

Traditionally big brands have been the big advertisers, keeping media in business. With the disaggregation of media, brands can talk directly to their customers and have direct relationships. A lot of experimentation has gone on in this area with sponsored programming, branded content on websites and television and joint media advertiser partnerships. I have been dabbling in this space for over a decade, and believe that now is the time for certain brands to extend into media directly. Nike could be the next ESPN. I’d go to Nike to get sports scores, watch games and get fitness tips. Martha Stewart took a media brand and turned it into products. Not all product brands can make the reverse morph but many can. Home Depot or Lowes can develop content and channels for home improvement. Expedia or Orbitz can create and distribute travel content. Yes, they invite competitive advertising in potentially but it is all about building audience, market and brand loyalty. 

5.17: Ben Katcher over at the Washington Note discusses a recent discussion about the roll of new media and public diplomacy with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband.  This clip is a good reminder of the potential of ‘low tech’, such as SMS and cell phones, in foreign arenas.  

5.11: Greg Bruno of the CFR wrote a fantastic article on the “information war” in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Bruno correctly identifies the need for rapid communication between the United States/Coalition Forces and the Afghan public.  I also love this quote from Rear Admiral Gregory J. Smith: 

Rear Admiral Gregory J. Smith, director of communications for U.S. Central Command, which has operational authority over the Afghan war, tells CFR.org possible new approaches include funding an expansion of radio transmission towers and news stations to allow local broadcasters to connect with indigenous publics, or protecting cell phone towers “so more people can have access to cell phones to communicate amongst themselves through text messaging or just voice communications.” The bottom line, Smith says, is to foster debate among Afghans, not preach American values.

Before all that, I want to take a second to thank some people who have been instrumental to my academic growth over the last two years.

Nick Cull.  A fantastic historian and passionate advisor, thank you for introducing me to this field and inspiring me to pursue a career in public diplomacy.

Gordon Stables.   A great boss, debate coach and friend, thank you for being a great listening board and always being in a  great mood.

Sherine Walton.  Another great boss and one of the kindest people I’ve ever worked with, thanks for providing me with the flexibility to be creative at work.

Anne Chermak.  A great resource and mentor, thanks for grounding our discussion with what really happened.  I’m sure the State Department still misses her.  I’ll plug my program here.  Anne is an example of one of USC’s greatest perks, having a former diplomat in residence.  You can’t beat that.  

Shawn Powers.  Excuse me, Dr. Shawn Powers.  You may not believe this, but you were a role model to me over these last two years in terms of how to approach the subject matter in an intelligent and innovative way.  Best of luck at the LSE.

Previously, I wrote about President Obama and the possibilities of engaging foreign publics via micro-blogging.  Recently, I posted a link to Jim Hogland’s editorial about this very subject.  Today, I discovered this fascinating post about White House 2.0 and Propaganda that furthers the conversation.  Before discussing the particular fears raised by James Lewin of Podcast News, I want to start with the following  quote from the White House blog (5.1):

Technology has profoundly impacted how – and where – we all consume information and communicate with one another. WhiteHouse.gov is an important part of the Administration’s effort to use the internet to reach the public quickly and effectively – but it isn’t the only place.

Even the White House blog exhibits a healthy sense of self-awareness as it publicly recognizes its own limitations.  The optimist views this as a sign that the White House is learning how to adopt social media, such as Facebook, YouTube or Twitter, in order to make itself more accessible and ultimately more transparent to the public.  Social media is a superior way for the White House to connect with the growing number of young people raised to gather information via digital networks.  The bully pulpit of the President needs to become more decentralized, more networked and more personal in order to cope with changing times.  The lesson of the optimist can be applied to the international public sphere as the President can directly engage millions of people across the globe.    

The pessimist’s viewpoint is expressed by Lewin.  His argument is summarized below.

First, White House 2.0 is a highly calculated endevour.  For example, photos are carefully chosen to correspond to specific themes.  Lewis writes,

Some of the images are even grouped into a set with the propaganda-speak title Delivering On Change, It offers hundreds of beautiful photos of Obama and his team in action – in meetings, giving speaches, calling world leaders, flying on Air Force One - delivering on change.

After visiting the White House’s Flickr cite, I see support for Lewin’s argument.  In the Delivering on Change album, it appears that each photo comes across as carefully selected.  Here is my favorite example:

Second, Obama is influencing the direction of new media.  Lewin predicts that (emphasis original),

Obama is serving up an unprecedented volume of new media. He’s putting it all over the Internet, making it easy to find. And he’s licensing it with the most liberal terms he can, making it easy to use, remix and mashup.  This puts indie new media publishers on similar footing as traditional media publishers. If you want to publish about Obama’s White House, you’ve got your choice of great photos, video and audio.  Great photos, video and audio that make President Obama and his administration look and sound good.  WhiteHouse 2.0 is the most powerful new media organization in the world.  What do indie content publishers have to do to avoid becoming part of the White House’s propaganda machine, like mainstream media did during much of George W. Bush’s presidency?

I think Lewin’s worst fears will be realized if ‘indie content publishers’ lose their focus and become too dependent on too few sources of information.  The mainstream media failed because they chose to ignore important news stories.  Lewin’s real fear is a compliant and lazy new media that becomes too reliant on the media provided by the White House 2.0.  In the age of cell phone cameras, instant communication and disappearing norms of privacy for public figures, it is difficult to believe that the web can be a successful tool for propaganda.  

What should we learn from this: Limit, as much as possible, the staged nature of candid photos of the President.  When engaging foreign publics, it is important to expand the photographer’s canvas beyond the White House.  Include the scenery, local population and cultural heritage.  Don’t try to control the conversation, be a part of the conversation.  Be a resource for as many varieties of journalists as possible.

The more I think about this, the more I want to write a post about how the White House should utilize Flickr to engage foreign audiences.  Stay tuned.

1) ROP: Glassman is working up to a consistent five to six posts a week.  It is still too early to tell if he will maintain this rate of posting.  I like using the stat ROP.  We need to start creating better terms to evaluate blog stats.  The box score nerd in me finally gets to come out.

2) Readibility: Glassman is entertaining, opinionated and relevant.  He is like TNT era Sir Charles Barkley for international relations.  He often says what many of us are thinking but no one is saying.  The rest of the time he is simply hilarious.

The insightful, Stop Explaining from 4.29:

In the speech, I urged practitioners of strategic communication to “stop putting so much emphasis on extolling and explaining ourselves. The strong temptation, indulged in by my predecessors, by me to some extent, and by our new president, is to correct misimpressions about the United States – that we are anti-Muslim, that we are not religious or family-oriented ourselves, that we don’t have the world’s best interests at heart. These attempts are futile at best and more likely counterproductive.” Instead, we should be to facilitate and convene a Grand Conversation, taking advantage of the best new social-networking technology. This is a strategic conversation — actually, thousands of conversations — in which our views are heard but do not necessarily dominate and are not necessarily voiced by us. And, at any rate, we need to remember that the subject is not the USA. It is you, the audience; the others; the ones who, in fact, are engaged in the civil war that is convulsing Islam.

And the entertaining, Second (and Third and Fourth …) Acts from 5.7:

A year or so ago, as I was despairing of ever getting confirmed as Under Secretary of State, I seriously considered writing a book about the persistence of Karl Marx’s ideas in American life. America was permeated with a Marxian perspective even though few of us realized it.

Enter the economic disaster of the fall. And now, of course, Marx is all the rage. He told you so! Like Eliot Spitzer and Arianna Huffington (who appeared together, in a chutzpah-fest, this morning on CNBC, of all places), Marx, even as a dead German, is proving there are indeed second (and third and fourth….) acts in American lives.

3) Respect.  Glassman is polite.  He  chooses not to use his blog to pick fights.  He explicitly states that “[he] want[s] readers to make up their own minds.”  To some that may be a negative, but I enjoy reading a blog that refuses to play to the lowest common denominator of the internets.  It is nice to expect civility.

4) He cares.  Glassman is not blogging because of vanity.  Sure he is proud of his accomplishments, but after reading his blog it is clear that he is a patriot with great insight.  Reading Glassman’s blog is like having a good conversation during office hours with a well-respected professor.  This is a rare commodity in the age of the revolving door between government service and cable news talking heads.

I look forward to reading more of what he has to say.

What America.gov does right:

(1) Language.  Specifically, America.gov is translated into Spanish, French, Russian, Farsi, Chinese and Arabic.  Each language is easy to find on the header.  The best feature is that instead of simply translating the English version into a different  language, each foreign language version of America.gov features customized content for relevant geographic regions.  Let’s take a look:

Here is the English version of America.gov for 5.6.2009:

The English version of America.gov headlines stories about the recent meeting between the United States, Pakistan and Afghanistan; immigration, remittances and the dollar; an upcoming global conference on H1N1.

Let’s look at the Russian version of America.gov: 

The Russian page headlines stories about Fed Chair Bernake and the need to improve the global economic outlook, American doctors saving the lives of Russian babies, and a recent meeting between Presidents Obama and Medvedev about arms control.

Customized content applies to all translated versions of America.gov.  This is a great first step to show that the United States is interested in the opinions of other nations.  Expanding on this customized content should be a high priority in a redesign of America.gov.

(2) Podcasts & Webcasts.  America.gov features regularly updates podcasts and interactive web chats.  America.gov features two regular podcasts, This Week From Washington and Issues Updates.  This Week from Washington tell stories about pressing issues from an American perspective.  Examples include: President Obama’s trip to Turkey and the U.S. decision to seek a seat on the Human Rights Council.  Issues Updates profiles important aspects of American democracy.  It tries to blend relevancy with education.  Recent podcasts include a conversation with retired Justice O’Connor and a round-table on how federal policy is made in America.  

Web chats are usually digital video-conferences featuring experts.  Anyone can participate without prior registration.  Previous web chats include questions about the H1N1 flu with freelance Scientific Journalist Cheryl Pellerin; how to run a presidential debate in Namibia with Janet H. Brown, executive director of the Commission on Presidential Debates; and an upcoming web chat about the history of Jazz with John Edward Hasse, curator of American music at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History.

(3) Response to crisis.  The new page devoted to tracking the H1N1 flu is cleanly organized and contains useful information.  Take a look:

This new page looks nothing like the rest of America.gov.  It comes from a different, more appealing template that directs the eye to critical information.  More importantly, the information is highly useful and easy to digest.  Links to the World Health Organization, Center for Disease Control, and a special series of reports for America.gov written by Cheryl Pellerin.  

(4) Free e-books.  America.gov hosts a series of short books that cover a wide range of topics.  Recent additions include, Being Muslim in America, Abraham Lincoln: A legacy of freedom, Dreams of Edgar Allen Poe, and American Popular Music.  These e-books are great resources filled with interesting facts and commentary.

Next up: Where America.gov needs to go and how it should get there.

. . . Macon Phillips, the affable young Internet specialist in charge of the White House’s new-media office.

He seemed unsure as well. “But I don’t think the president is the right person for this. There are better ways to engage the micro-blogging community,” he told me, explaining at another point: “We try to find the audiences where they are, and deliver the president’s message to them at the best delivery point.” That now includes Twitter, where the White House established an institutional presence last week.

The targets include audiences worldwide. Establishing direct strategic presidential communication with the populations of other countries — especially other countries ruled by hostile governments — is a top foreign policy priority for the new administration.

5,5: Over at HufPo, Sheldon Himelfarb and Tara Sonenshine of the USIP wrote a short op-ed describing both the importance and difficulty of the job facing future Undersecretary McHale.  This op-ed is short on details, but it is good to see more press calling for aggressive public diplomacy.

5.4/5.5: Fred Kaplan entered the best IR film discussion and Drezner responds. 

5.6: TNR’s the Plank found this fantastic ad for Schweppes featuring Nicole Kidman and Slumdog Millionaire’s Rubiana Ali.  I am always fascinated to see Hollywood celebrities partake in foreign advertisements.  It is interesting to view the interaction between their fame and the cultural proclivities of foreign markets.

From Paul Boutin at New York Times’ Gadget Wise blog,

… there are two outstanding reasons President Obama or an aide should tweet one line per day:

First, Twitter’s text-only, 140-character-max simplicity is ideal for putting out a statement or a call to action without the need to script a longer essay or speech. Mr. Obama’s two updates were perfect examples: One asked for questions about the economy, the other linked to a Web site that collects the president’s 100-day accomplishments. The White House staff could easily deliver one solid message per day. They could start by tweeting each week’s video address, to remind us to watch it.

Second, Twitter, used as a sort of micro-blog, is a humanizing medium that can put a face on the sprawling, distant bureaucracy of government. California’s secretary of state, Debra Bowen, tweets several times a day. She’s followed by people who previously didn’t know California even had a secretary of state.

I am a twitter skeptic, but I am warming up to the idea that President Obama should consider micro-blogging as a way to connect with the foreign publics.  Micro-blogging, which I define as including twitter and SMS, could be a “humanizing medium for the United States.  Here are two examples of where micro-blogging could be a great public diplomacy tool.  

(1)  When travelling abroad.  In his recent trip to Turkey, Obama could have micro-blogged information about his positive impressions throughout his visit.  After he met with students, he could have micro-blogged about a specific experience that resonated with him.  Imagine getting a text in Turkish from President Obama saying how impressed he was by Turkish university students and here is why _____.  

Additionally, micro-blogging could also be used to mobilize people to attend a specific event.  The 2008 election demonstrated Obama’s effectiveness using micro-blogging.

(2) When announcing foreign policy.  Take the START treaty as an example.  Obama could micro-blog in Russian about why START is beneficial to both nations.  He could better make his case to the Russian public without the filter of the Russian media.  Taking this three steps further, imagine if relations with Iran were normalized and Obama engaged the Iranian public.

Micro-blogging for Obama should not be a blow by blow on his daily life, like Colleen Graffy’s tweets.  Obama should micro-blog to engage the world and advocate for his global agenda.

WhiteHouse.gov is a great start, and is part of something much bigger which we’re only beginning to understand.

It’s part of a number of social media efforts which also include recovery.gov, nationalservice.gov, the new HealthReform.gov, and the entirety of the accountability and transparency movement.

The new government websites listed by Craig are impressive.  They are aesthetically pleasing, clean, easy to use and well-updated.  There is a common template utilized by these new .gov’s that meets the expectations of our web 2.0 culture.  Observe.

whitehouse.gov:

recovery.gov:

healthreform.gov:

At first glance, these three websites demonstrate the potential upsides to upgrading America’s .govs.  For example, individuals can stay in touch with issues they care about via e-mail or rss feeds.  Each website contains either a blog, a forum or both.  The search function is powerful and accessible making it easy to access specialized information.  Recent news is always available on the home page.  Government reports are highlighted on the home page so detailed information is readily available.  

Obama’s campaign demonstrated that people will become more politically active when the internet works for them. These new .govs are a giant step in the right direction.  

Now, let’s take a look at the State Department’s global portal to the United States: america.gov:

America.gov is dated, overly ambitious and not very useful.  It is a poor representation of how should America “engage the world.”  Here are some of my main criticisms.

First, there is a lack of thought behind america.gov’s organization.  Start with the main headers right below the logo.  

Outside of the home button, I am not sure what america.gov is trying to accomplish.  Is america.gov seeking to educate the world about American identity, such as America Life, or is it a place where global audiences can learn about America’s stance on important issues, such as the economy, global challenges and international relations.  America.gov fails to fulfill either goal.  Under American Life, people can read about diversity, education and America’s three branches of government.  All three sub-sections come across as slightly forced and a little chessy.  The primary culprit for this is a lack of content.  For example, under the education section of American Life, one can either learn about top science and engineering programs, sledding in the arctic or community colleges.  If I was a prospective foreign student, I wouldn’t spend more than thirty seconds on this website.  I would want information about what it is like to be a student in America.  I would expect links to information about American universities and colleges.  I would especially want information from people of my country that studied in the United States. What did they think?  What were there experiences?  As of now, this website comes is more of a project than a resource.  The problem is that there are no signs that this will change.

The economy section amount to little more than a PR page for a potential green economy.  The international relations section is comprised of an article about the summit of Americas, ping pong diplomacy, military assistance to Latin America and an interesting report about the global terrorist mentality.  These two sections are nice examples of what you would want to include, but are not close to being useful sources of information.  Additionaly, it is unclear what the decision criteria is for article selection.  At this point, it appears to be random.

America.gov should not be defined by a limited set of topics.  One of the best features about whitehouse.gov et al is that they are malleable.  The new whitehouse.gov is primarily about keeping people up to date with the executive branch.  The website does a decent job of balancing content (text, audio and visual) that let’s people observe the United States and make their own judgements with arguments for the President’s agenda.  Recovery.gov and Healthreform.gov are specific examples of how new websites will be created when necessary to provide more in-depth analysis.  Echoing Craig Newmark, this is a welcome development since it increases the transparency of the government.

America.gov can learn a lot from these new .govs.  To become better organized, America.gov needs to adopt a more direct approach.  Currently, the website comes across as shoddy because it lacks the depth of content that it attempts to sell.  The website does a bunch of things poorly.  The new .govs, such as recovery and healthreform, excel at communicating their message because they do not get off message.  By starting off smaller, America.gov can build into a larger service.  To get started, America.gov should be a whitehouse.gov for global audiences.  America.gov should be a place where information about the United States foreign policy is constantly updated.  America’s arguments for international change should be communicated via this new .gov.  Then the website should expand into other services and consider creating satellite sites when needed.     

A preview from part two:  Second, america.gov is ugly.  Instead of discussing my personal dislikes, I’ll offer a simple recommendation.  Copy and paste the template from the new .govs.  It is customizable and would do wonders for america.gov.  It better incorporates images, social media, widgets, etc.

There are lots of terrific war movies, of course, but most of them tell you relatively little about why the war happened or what the conflict was actually about. And spy movies have long been a popular genre, ranging from Hitchcock’sThirty-Nine Steps to the gadgetry and glitz of most Bond flicks to the film noir seediness of The Third Man to the paranoid high-tech travelogue that is the Jason Bourne franchise.

But let’s raise the bar high, and exclude pure war movies, spy capers, documentaries, and overt propaganda films like Triumph of the Will or Frank Capra’s Why We Fight, and focus on movies that tells us something about international relations more broadly.

Taking Walt’s challenge, here are some ideas for a side screening showing films that thematically relate to public diplomacy.  Remember this list will exclude propaganda films that arguably comprise the majority of the public diplomacy cinema catalogue.  

Babel.  American Idol after Iraq by Nathan Gardels and Michael Medavoy argue that Babel is a rare film that   

suggests is that the whole idea of public diplomacy must be turned on its head, inverted inward, to educate our own leaders, the public and the storytellers of popular culture about the world beyond our borders.

Babel’s three narrative arcs tell a story of an interconnected world sustained not just by economics but through the human condition.

Just released Sleep Dealer is a great sci-fi film that investigates a near-future where technology and outsourcing meet.  This is a film great for public diplomacy because it raises serious questions about the future of communication, warfare and commerce.

The 2006 Academy Award winner for best action live short, West Bank Story, is probably the best falafel musical of the decade.  In all seriousness, this short film conveys a powerful message about conflict resolution and empathy. 

Thoughts?